Thread: When will humanity expand into space?

Originally Posted by Xei

There's even the possibility of humans mastering psychology and genetics and eliminating the irrational elements in us which cause war.

Would that not arguably remove some of the very things that make us human? Emotions are irrational and nothing more than a shortcut to motivate us towards action for example, which obviously have downsides when they backfire. Seems rather unlikely that it would be possible to eliminate the problems inherent with them and have perfectly rational emotions.

But who knows.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So long as one of the qualities we consider irrational is judaism, I'm on board with eugenics.

Yeah good point man, when I suggested we could adjust the biological basis of territorial, intolerant, aggressive behaviours, what I actually meant was that we should exterminate the Jews. 10/10 post, would read again, potential Pulitzer candidate.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Would that not arguably remove some of the very things that make us human? Emotions are irrational and nothing more than a shortcut to motivate us towards action for example, which obviously have downsides when they backfire. Seems rather unlikely that it would be possible to eliminate the problems inherent with them and have perfectly rational emotions.

But who knows.

Quite possible, but the irrational cognitive processes which lead to aggressive discrimination are of course biological in nature, so my point was just a general one that we may be able to reliably understand and then target their basis in future.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The space colonies can have bars, restaurants, movie theaters, schools, Wal-Mart, and the other stuff that generates money on Earth. Eventually, Earth will be uninhabitable, and humanity will only be able to survive in space. If the world doesn't get destroyed by nuts who use nukes in attempts to bang virgins, I am pretty sure the space age is coming.

Probably, but I don't really see any argument here that there will be any compelling, financially viable reasons in the near future; there's no reason we'd currently want to build a school on Mars. The Earth will be far more habitable than any other planet for many millennia to come.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah good point man, when I suggested we could adjust the biological basis of territorial, intolerant, aggressive behaviours, what I actually meant was that we should exterminate the Jews. 10/10 post, would read again, potential Pulitzer candidate.

I have the same argument against this as I do when it is argued that only people with a certain IQ should be able to breed. It is as fallacious and frankly dim to assume you can fix people by fixing genes as it is to assume you can fix people by fixing the way they are raised. Both behaviorism and its opposite have been thoroughly refuted for over half a century. As far as I'm concerned you may as well be advocating phrenology, that's how anachronistic your thinking is. I suggest you take a course in human behavioral biology, Stanford offers a free one on youtube.

The most you could hope for is some type of Brave New World style dystopia wherein certain people are bred to be more docile and obedient. I would find this outcome tragic, and frankly I think that manipulation and control over genes is inferior to natural selection because natural selection implies complete anticipation whereas man is limited by the scope of their perception. I would rather tolerate a little aggression than to surrender biology's greatest strength.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It could serve as a base for expanded operations in space.

lol, that's rather putting off the point.

I imagine asteroid mining (which is something we'll be able to take more seriously in the coming years) would have a use for a lunar colony.

No, taking asteroid materials into the moon's gravitational well would be a complete waste of resources.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I have the same argument against this as I do when it is argued that only people with a certain IQ should be able to breed. It is as fallacious and frankly dim to assume you can fix people by fixing genes as it is to assume you can fix people by fixing the way they are raised. Both behaviorism and its opposite have been thoroughly refuted for over half a century. As far as I'm concerned you may as well be advocating phrenology, that's how anachronistic your thinking is. I suggest you take a course in human behavioral biology, Stanford offers a free one on youtube.

The idea that genes and environment affect psychology is anachronistic? You have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe watch that course you mentioned.

The most you could hope for is some type of Brave New World style dystopia wherein certain people are bred to be more docile and obedient. I would find this outcome tragic, and frankly I think that manipulation and control over genes is inferior to natural selection because natural selection implies complete anticipation whereas man is limited by the scope of their perception. I would rather tolerate a little aggression than to surrender biology's greatest strength.

Natural selection implies complete anticipation? What on Earth does that mean? Because it sounds like you need to take a basic biology course, too. Perhaps read about vestigial structures like the recurrent laryngeal nerve of giraffes.

I'm not talking about removing anger. I'm talking about understanding and counteracting psychological phenomena such as dehumanisation.

Originally Posted by Xei

The idea that genes and environment affect psychology is anachronistic? You have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe watch that course you mentioned.

No dude, the idea that exclusively one or the other is the only influence is anachronistic. Or rather thoroughly discredited.

Complete anticipation means that no possibility is off the playing field. Any mutation can be tested. This is essentially non-directed transformation, while human beings manipulating genes for desired outcomes would be directed transformation. I believe that non-directed transformation is superior to directed transformation because non-directed transformation has a wider anticipation of outcomes. In other words, we do not know the repercussions, whether long term or short term, of genetic manipulation, and while nature doesn't know either, natural genetic manipulation is more likely to be prepared.

Originally Posted by Xei

Probably, but I don't really see any argument here that there will be any compelling, financially viable reasons in the near future; there's no reason we'd currently want to build a school on Mars. The Earth will be far more habitable than any other planet for many millennia to come.

The end of Earth is a very long way away, but I think the space age is closer than it has to be because so many people are obsessed with the idea of living in space. I know people who say they would be willing to die tomorrow if it means they can go into space for just a few hours. People who are that extreme are probably pretty rare, but they are the extremes of a very common walk of life.